Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the active-company default and the exact families of metadata returned. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—default scope, metadata categories, and override context—earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only lookup with zero required parameters and an output schema present. The description, combined with annotations and schema, leaves no material gap for an agent deciding whether or how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter labelCompanyId is already described as an 'Admin-only override'. The description adds the default context of 'active company' but does not need to explain the parameter further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Get label-family metadata for the active company'. It enumerates concrete content (parent label, sub-accounts visible to label admins, shared wallet status), which distinguishes it from label analytics, wallet, or contact siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: the tool operates on the active company unless an admin override is supplied. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, but its scope is specific enough to route an agent away from track/campaign/ad-analytics getters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.